feat(api): update API spec from langfuse/langfuse 1fcdb77

[langfuse-bot]

Greptile Summary

This PR updates the generated feedback API documentation to clarify that feedback submission is unavailable in the HIPAA cloud region.

• Adds the availability notice to synchronous and asynchronous feedback clients.
• Keeps the standard and raw-response client documentation aligned.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The PR appears safe to merge because it only adds consistent availability documentation and does not alter runtime behavior.

The synchronous, asynchronous, parsed-response, and raw-response client docstrings receive the same clarification, with no executable code or API contract changes.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "feat(api): update API spec from langfuse..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[github-actions]

@claude review

[claude]

Looks good, straightforward docstring update.

What was reviewed: confirmed the diff only adds one line ("Not available in the HIPAA cloud region.") to the docstrings of the feedback-submission method across FeedbackClient, AsyncFeedbackClient, RawFeedbackClient, and AsyncRawFeedbackClient in the generated langfuse/api/feedback/ module. No signatures, logic, imports, or behavior were touched.

Extended reasoning...

Overview

This PR touches two generated API client files under langfuse/api/feedback/ (client.py and raw_client.py), which appear to be Fern/OpenAPI-generated bindings. The change adds a single docstring line, "Not available in the HIPAA cloud region.", to the docstring of the feedback-submission method on all four affected classes (sync/async, raw/non-raw). I ran the diff directly and confirmed there are no other changes — no logic, signatures, imports, or control flow were modified.

Security risks

None. This is a pure documentation/comment change with zero impact on runtime behavior, authentication, data handling, or any code path.

Level of scrutiny

Minimal scrutiny is warranted. The change is mechanical, self-contained, matches the pattern of an auto-generated API spec update (consistent with the PR title referencing an upstream spec commit), and is trivially verifiable by reading the diff, which I did in full.

Other factors

No CLAUDE.md conventions apply, no CODEOWNERS concerns were identified for generated API client directories, and the bug-hunting system reported no findings after a full dry-streak exit. There is no prior review history or outstanding third-party objection on this PR to weigh against approval.